Jump to content
Y-29.Silky

How is the Yak/Lagg more durable than the P-47?

Recommended Posts

 

Had my go for a few hours in and against the P-47 in Berloga. 

 

1. Wing comes off.

2. Engine on fire. (What are radial engine?) 

3. 7mm burst to the wing and the plane spins out of control 
 

In the 109 alone, it only takes a short burst to put the P-47 into pieces while it still takes half a belt of 20mm to bring down a Lagg or Yak. This thing should be as sturdy, if not more, than an IL-2. This Brazilian pilot hit a chimney with his P-47 and returned it for crying out loud.
 220px-P47brazil.jpg.0ac105e7ee5f6fe5e320fcb3ad8cf9cf.jpg

 

 

 


battle_damaged_P-47_Thunderbolt_of_the_78th_Fighter_Group_at_Duxford.jpg.77e8df2c987ade23c709ef38261b5b24.jpg

 

 

Please tell me this isn't final?

p47-prop.jpg

Edited by Y-29.Silky
double pic
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, all problems except for the fire imo (depends though) The P-47 fuel tanks are located in front and underneath the cockpit so this may be why it catches fire rather easily in-game.

Anther factor to consider is in berloga you're only flying with very minimal fuel, a fire is more likely to happen in a near empty fuel tank compared to one that is full or nearly so.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said:

This Brazilian pilot hit a chimney with his P-47 and returned it for crying out loud.

 

Yeah, just outboard of the ammo bay. The chimney took off the wing-tip. Big deal.

 

Not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does sound like something weird is up with the 7.9mm

 

Thing to look out for in the P-47 is the oil radiators are very vulnerable from the from; they're just in the chin and, as near as I can tell, unarmoured, and right in front of the hot exhaust waste gate. A hit there and you risk engine oil pouring onto one of the hottest parts of the plane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

 

What were the results for the 7.92mm mgs? Those seem to be the ones people are reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Yeah, just outboard of the ammo bay. The chimney took off the wing-tip. Big deal.

 

Not.

 

Took off 4 foot of wing, pretty significant imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Took off 4 foot of wing, pretty significant imo.

 

Not anything you'd like to have happen to you, but nothing out of the ordinary. I've seen 190s with similar damage and I'm quite sure, there'd even be a 109/ Spitfire with a similar percentage of wing-area missing and still coming home.

 

Nothing serious on the Jug is missing in that picture, except for the outboard aileron-hinge. He probably just trimmed the roll away and had to work a bit in the pattern. The flaps are fully down, so no control-problems whatsoever. The damage looks much worse than it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:

This thing should be as sturdy, if not more, than an IL-2.

 

Il-2 sported about 700 kg of armor (that's about twice of what the Thunderbolt-II [A-10A] carries). How much armor does the P-47 mount?

 

(I see your point and agree to a certain degree, but you are ruining it for yourself with absurdities like this.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

Il-2 sported about 700 kg of armor (that's about twice of what the Thunderbolt-II [A-10A] carries). How much armor does the P-47 mount?

 

You're both right in your own ways.

 

Armor helps when someone is plinking you, but it won't add any structural integrity to the airframe. After all, it's just a big clunk of metal screwed to some place.

It will help survivabilityby not letting ole Leaddy McBangBang through, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

You're both right in your own ways.

 

Armor helps when someone is plinking you, but it won't add any structural integrity to the airframe. After all, it's just a big clunk of metal screwed to some place.

It will help survivabilityby not letting ole Leaddy McBangBang through, though.

This.

 

And the P-47 did have armor plating and other things going for it compared to the il2.

It had two armored plates, one in front and one behind the pilot. It also had two fueltanks underneath and slightly forward of the pilot that helped protect him form groundfire.

Another thing is the Turbo Supercharger and the large amount of ducting running throughout the airframe. Lastly it had a monsterous 18 cylinder engine that would provide some protection to the pilot.

 

Structural wise the P-47 was definitely the better built aircraft imo, but armor wise the Il2 had it beat.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Armor helps when someone is plinking you, but it won't add any structural integrity to the airframe. After all, it's just a big clunk of metal screwed to some place.

 

This I agree generally, but not for IL-2 specifically. Its unique armored hull was an itegrated part of the load bearing structure, it wasn't simply armor plates added to an existing construction (as is usually the case with aircraft). As such it saved considerable weight, but was unremovable in return (which was deemed OK in the design phase due to specific nature of the aircraft).

 

In other words, IL-2 wasn't called "flying tank" for nothing - it literally was an (aerodynamically designed) armoured vehicle with engine, pilot and fuel inside protected from every direction (even from above, let alone sides and from below), with tail and wings (rather than tracks/wheels) attached outside.

 

P-47 on the other hand was of classic construcion with two armour plates added infront and behind the pilot (quite standard in 1944). So you really can't compare the two, this is two separate worlds.

 

Points where I do see IL-2 could be weaker compared to the P-47 are the wooden parts of aircraft not protected by the armoured hull - the outter parts of wings and the rear fuselage with tail.

 

P-47 armor.JPG

image.png

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IL-2 had a lot of armor to protect the pilot and the engine (-accessories) from small to medium caliber fire.

Hit anything unprotected (e.g. the tailfeathers) and she'll go in just like any other airplane.

 

The IL-2 had armor, the P-47 had a higher speed to help survivability. An IL-2 minus the bombs is still a sitting duck to fighters - a P-47 freed of the extra weight can fend for it's own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Legioneod said:

This.

 

And the P-47 did have armor plating and other things going for it compared to the il2.

It had two armored plates, one in front and one behind the pilot. It also had two fueltanks underneath and slightly forward of the pilot that helped protect him form groundfire.

Another thing is the Turbo Supercharger and the large amount of ducting running throughout the airframe. Lastly it had a monsterous 18 cylinder engine that would provide some protection to the pilot.

 

Structural wise the P-47 was definitely the better built aircraft imo, but armor wise the Il2 had it beat.

 

Good writeup.

 

It's really a tough comparison, as they are different planes with different design goals.  There is a reason why the P-47 can do over 400 MPH while the IL2 can't even do 300.  Okay, a big honkin' engine has something to do with it.  But there is more - the P-47 was always expected to fight and defeat other fighter planes.  It can't be armored like the IL2 and still do that.

 

About the wings -  I am coming round to the idea that wing kills are too easy for all planes.  I seem to be taking down planes that way an awful lot, including IL2s.  Still have to admit that I do not have enough info to declare this to be right or wrong, but it doesn't seem right.  Most good shooters aimed for the front of the engine to the cockpit - meat and metal in WWI.  It still applied in WWII.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How is the Yak/Lagg more durable than the P-47?

 

Because LaGG is built in wood like the Yak, while P-47 is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yak wings are not more durable, they often fall out after one good pass or even one good burst. Almost all my kills are break of enemy wings this with undamaged enemy in first place very often.

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, 150GCT_Veltro said:

 

Because LaGG is built in wood like the Yak, while P-47 is not.

ahahahahahahahhaahha

ahahahahahahahahahahhahaha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lagg3 cant handle six 30mm rounds in the tail like P47. Its funny and you want to be more durable

Edited by Voidhunger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

You don't seem to understand, the P-47 should be more durable than an IL-2.

 

 

Nothing is more durable than the IL2.   :cool:

 

Still my favorite plane in the game by far.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

Lagg3 cant handle six 30mm rounds in the tail like P47. Its funny and you want to be more durable

 

Yup, this. Even the LaGG-3 can't handle it. 

 

However, as Legioneod said, I think the issue is related to the inherent way of the damage model which applies to all machines in the sim, with machine gun caliber rounds sawing off wings. Not dissimilar to sawing down a tree trunk with a machine gun. 

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Yup, this. Even the LaGG-3 can't handle it. 

 

However, as Legioneod said, I think the issue is related to the inherent way of the damage model which applies to all machines in the sim, with machine gun caliber rounds sawing off wings. Not dissimilar to sawing down a tree trunk with a machine gun. 

 

 

And yet if the structural destructive ability of machineguns is reduced in the sim, where before there were cries of the P-47 not being durable enough there will instead be howls that .50 cal machine guns are not up to par with cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

And yet if the structural destructive ability of machineguns is reduced in the sim, where before there were cries of the P-47 not being durable enough there will instead be howls that .50 cal machine guns are not up to par with cannons.

 

Lol, true. Which is the lesser of two evils?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

And yet if the structural destructive ability of machineguns is reduced in the sim, where before there were cries of the P-47 not being durable enough there will instead be howls that .50 cal machine guns are not up to par with cannons.

Not necessarily, it would just make it to where they'd do damage in a more realistic way imo. Damage to the engine, damage to control rods, fuel, ammo, pilot, etc. None of this would likely change, only the overall damage of machine guns to wing spars would need to change.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Lol, true. Which is the lesser of two evils?

 

 

"P-47 was tougher than an IL-2"  vs. "Colonel Buzz "Buzzkill" Hammerson said a P-47 once sank a battleship with just his .50 cals"

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 4:28 PM, Rebel_Scum said:

Is anybody else seeing a pattern here?

 

Yes.  People have been complaining about the Yaks being too sturdy for quite some time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JG13_opcode said:

 

Yes.  People have been complaining about the Yaks being too sturdy for quite some time now.

 

It's not Yak, it's LaGG-3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Not necessarily, it would just make it to where they'd do damage in a more realistic way imo. Damage to the engine, damage to control rods, fuel, ammo, pilot, etc. None of this would likely change, only the overall damage of machine guns to wing spars would need to change.

 

 

Maybe so, but I think that a lot of people would still be terribly disappointed with the effectiveness of machineguns, and consequently all American fighters, when compared to cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see my other post , if u want to test out the p47 damage model for yourself, I made a mission to do just this easily.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/41050-game-version-3007-discussion-bf109k4-p47d28-camel-pfalz-fm-multiplayer-damage-and-more/?do=findComment&comment=700350

 

In my testing MG's don't take wings off , unless they rip off from being weakened with wing loading, but 20mm cannons do.

 

MG's damage control rods and reduce the wing lift and then plane rolls over and dives in.

 

This p47 shot with 7.62mm machine gun "ShKAS"  , then rolling over and diving in to ground, visual damage , i suspect is less than actual damage.

This was good number of hits from the MGs on that wing.

 

307960_20181129162957_1.jpg

 

Here you can see right wing has no aileron control anymore, but left wing still does.

 

307960_20181129163015_1.jpg

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take a decent amount of MGs to take one down, often I was pilot killing

if you  hit vitals then its less, control surfaces with mg's seem most effective, but thats a lot of time on target with MG's, cannons pretty quick

if u hit wings

307960_20181129171100_1.jpg

307960_20181129171054_1.jpg

307960_20181129171353_1.jpg

but even tanky il-2 go down fast if u hit them in wings

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always figured the small caliber MG's sawing wings off argument was baseless. My own testing on an IL-2 with nearly all shots from my 109E7 being on target was nearly all my ammo gone before structural failure. 

Edited by Field-Ops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So spoiler alert... it isn't. Because shooting MG (Ger Mauser) at a Yak's wing it comes off pretty darn quick. 


BUT I think the way entire wings come off at the root so easily is also misleading. It makes planes look weaker than they are. That's a very strange kind of failure of the wing, but in game it is the default. Wings coming off are cinematic, and have long been represented in films (often overrepresented in old films because scale model planes without the proper structure are weak at the join - and because it looks cool). Then we saw it in old video games because its an obvious kill and an easier animation. Now we have some fairly complex physics. But don't let that fool you, the real consequences of structural damage in the sim aren't realistic yet.

 

It is misleading, from reports and guncam footage wings are more... floppy and far harder to completely tear off unless a rather large explosion hits the root. Even 30mm HE impacting the wing mangles it, popping off panels etc, but it would be very unlikely for it to shear off cleanly. So how do you represent a mangled wing? Well, for the devs... it'd be near impossible. We already have some "softness" at multiple longitudinal joints along the wing, that's impressive enough. 


So the limitations of the engine makes things seem weak, the almost binary nature of some of the damage in game is frustrating.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peregrine7 said:

 

It is misleading, from reports and guncam footage wings are more... floppy and far harder to completely tear off unless a rather large explosion hits the root. Even 30mm HE impacting the wing mangles it, popping off panels etc, but it would be very unlikely for it to shear off cleanly. So how do you represent a mangled wing? Well, for the devs... it'd be near impossible. We already have some "softness" at multiple longitudinal joints along the wing, that's impressive enough. 


So the limitations of the engine makes things seem weak, the almost binary nature of some of the damage in game is frustrating. 

 

Ya sounds about right... visible damage is more aesthetic than a visual of actual.

3 hours ago, Field-Ops said:

I always figured the small caliber MG's sawing wings off argument was baseless. My own testing on an IL-2 with nearly all shots from my 109E7 being on target was nearly all my ammo gone before structural failure. 

 

If u hit the Il-2 near wheel wells on wing they snap off , trying to target body from the 6 is not they way.

weak spots are wings, and engine and water cooler, profile shots are best , not from the six

its also possible to destroy rudder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many here have real life experience with these types of weapons? I grew up with guns. I spent three years in Iraq with two of them in a gun turret. I can tell you from personal experience that .50BMG will go pretty deep through a truck made of steel. It will also drill a clean hole through a quarter inch steel plate at 300m. The 7.62x54R (Soviet) will most definitely penetrate a meter thick tree trunk and keep on going. My father's shooting range was set up at the edge of the swamp. A few huge (20m+ high) trees were falling down from our plinking with rifles. A .22WMR will put a clean hole through a steel car wheel 50m. I don't know how useless you guys think machine guns should be but they are pretty damn potent in the real world.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing video about ww1 pilot revolver hitting like 20mm cannon.

Just like actual history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in Berloga i had never ever ripped off a wing of p47 with MG's in E7, or .50 cal with mc202.  And hitting p47 with 20mm shells from E7 doesn't remove them either. The explosions look superficial, nothing ever comes off but the plane dives & dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Danziger said:

How many here have real life experience with these types of weapons? I grew up with guns. I spent three years in Iraq with two of them in a gun turret. I can tell you from personal experience that .50BMG will go pretty deep through a truck made of steel. It will also drill a clean hole through a quarter inch steel plate at 300m. The 7.62x54R (Soviet) will most definitely penetrate a meter thick tree trunk and keep on going. My father's shooting range was set up at the edge of the swamp. A few huge (20m+ high) trees were falling down from our plinking with rifles. A .22WMR will put a clean hole through a steel car wheel 50m. I don't know how useless you guys think machine guns should be but they are pretty damn potent in the real world.

 

 

I do.  And machineguns are nice, but cannons are better.  If I have to pick between a couple .50s or a 242 bushmaster I know what I will take, on an aircraft or on the ground.

 

In terms of instant structural lethality in the sim, I think it's only a matter of time until the disappointment with the armament of the P-51/47 compared to the German fighters comes out, but we'll see.  The P-40 does well, but BoBP is a different era.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

I do.  And machineguns are nice, but cannons are better.  If I have to pick between a couple .50s or a 242 bushmaster I know what I will take, on an aircraft or on the ground.

 

In terms of instant structural lethality in the sim, I think it's only a matter of time until the disappointment with the armament of the P-51/47 compared to the German fighters comes out, but we'll see.  The P-40 does well, but BoBP is a different era.

Idk. The US continued to use .50BMG against aircraft well into the Cold War. It's like the 9mm vs .45ACP argument. Neither is better. They fill different slots on the tool bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...